Film Reviews by Timmy B

I remember when this film was released in 2014, there was a massive amount of critical praise, as well as the debate of the questions/future that this movie posed. As someone who isn't that into Sci-Fi, it wasn't a film I was clamouring to see & the only reason I rented it, apart from remembering the critical praise, was seeing that the 4K remaster had just been released.

But as much as I wanted to like it, for me it just didn't work that well. For a start, I could see within 20 minutes what was going to happen. The "twists" were so clearly & blatantly set up, the film thinking it was playing all these cunning sleight of hands, but it was obvious where things were going.

The main story focuses on Caleb, a programmer at an enormous internet search company, who wins a competition to spend the week with the multi-billionaire CEO at his luxury estate in the middle of nowhere. Once he arrives, he is then told that the real reason he is there is because the CEO, Nathan, has created a groundbreaking & completely revolutionary new android robot called Ava which he wants Caleb to "test." These tests, based around the Turing test, basically is to see if Caleb ever feels like he isn't talking to a machine with all its limits, but a real sentient being.

As the story progresses, you see Caleb start to slowly become fascinated and infatuated by Ava, as well as Nathan slowly start to play the kind of mind games which are the last bastion of someone who has more money than God & nothing else that gives his life meaning. But even though Alicia Vikander is excellent in her role, plus the set design & graphics/CGI cutting edge for when the film was made, the rest of it basically left me cold. The sort of existential big questions the film posed were powerful, but the way it was put onto the screen did not resonate for me.

For many people, this film is amazing, plus I do respect it's ambitious scope, especially for a first time director. But it wasn't something that worked overall for me.

In Bruges was one of my favourite films of the 2000's, coming completely out of nowhere and enthralling me & many others with it's jet black humour, as well as it's musings on life & death. It also, of course, featured the prominent paring of Colin Farrell & Brendan Gleeson, actors who perfectly complimented each other & whose chemistry was flawless. Over the years, there were many times that Martin McDonagh was asked by people to work with both of them again, and partly as a result of that, we now have The Banshees of Inisherin.

Set on the aforementioned titular island during the Irish Civil war, the premise itself is extremely simple: Pádraic Súilleabháin & Colm Doherty live close to each other in the close-knit community of Inisherin, spending their time chatting, usually at the local pub whilst drinking. One day (immediately as the film starts,) Colm simply stops talking to Pádraic & never wants anything to do with him again or be his friend. Pádraic cannot deal with this & is determined to keep talking to & be around Colm. When Colm is not left alone despite repeatedly asking to be, he then threatens to cut off his own fingers.

The scene & atmosphere is set very well & there are the usual McDonagh traits within the story: extremely eccentric & larger than life characters, an at times horrible/callous behaviour shown towards each other and finally the lingering threat of violence. The cinematography is beautiful & really shows how incredible Ireland is as a country, coupled with some great performances.

However, as a story & a film, I could only ever be partially engaged with it. The script is full of the excellent acidic prose that McDonagh is known for, but the actual narrative is actually quite boring at times. Nothing much really happens & at times also really stretches credulity. For example, despite the larger than life theme & overall ridiculousness, not liking someone then hideously maiming yourself to prove a point just didn't work for me. And whilst there were some quite poignant & deep musings on life at times, again it just didn't really fit the film for me. Then we come to the ending, which is a bit of a damp squib. The film just, sort of, finishes & I was left wondering "OK... Was that it?"

Having said that, I did enjoy parts of it & for some people, the gentle pace and jet black humour will be exactly what they enjoy. But it can't hold a candle to In Bruges...

In a very random way, the main thing I thought about as this film staggered & slowly inched it's way forward through its running time was Everything Everywhere All At Once. Because that, like this, had pretty much every critic falling over themselves to outdo each other in the praise they heaped on it. The only reason I rented it was because of this universal & adoring praise, from reviewers such as Empire magazine, plus the Oscar nomination for Paul Mescal.

This film effectively is just watching a series of snapshots from a holiday, inter-spliced with random clips of the main character in a nightclub dancing in strobe lights. We see Calum, who is taking his daughter Sophie on holiday to Turkey. There are hints that all is not well with Calum mentally, despite his best efforts to both hide this from everyone and also read self-help books/practice Tai-Chi. Sophie is an extremely confident & driven girl, also discovering a lot about herself as a maturing young woman.

But this film is dire. It is clear that what it is attempting to do is cultivate a gentle atmosphere where we observe in a very naturalistic way characters evolving. But these films also have a habit of slipping into boring naval gazing, as well as being unbelievably pretentious. And the only real word/emotion I can say about this film is boring. Despite several moments which had the potential to be something more, this film is just a dead loss.

Like many of the other reviews here, just don't waste your time. Unless your idea of a riveting an hour & 40 minutes is watching a father & daughter saying stilted dialogue to each other & trying to mine profoundness from nothingness.

James Cameron is in many sense one of the few directors we have who is still genuinely breaking new ground & pushing the limits of what is achievable on film, to the extent that with both this & the first Avatar, the technology simply wasn't available/ready to be able to create what it was he wanted to create. But despite the jaw-dropping & visually sumptuous images, this film is basically an extremely expensive technical exercise in what you can do if money is no object & not having a great script is not seen as a barrier.

Avatar 2 reunites us back with Jake Sully & his family, which has now grown to 4 children & 1 adopted child. Everything is well after the events of the first film, until the soldiers/Sky People return, determined to complete the mission that they started, but this time to succeed. Forced to flee, the Sully's then team up with another species who primarily exist in and under the water. But they are tracked down & forced to fight and defend themselves.

Unfortunately, despite the way this film looks (and make no mistake the visual work is incredible, literally one of the best animated visuals I've ever seen,) the rest is almost a total failure, starting with the length. This film is 3 HOURS long. That is an obscenely bloated length for a film which in effect is a rerun of the first one in many ways, but now with the confidence of the fact that the first one made megabucks, so they can pretty much do whatever they want. This film falls exactly into the same trap as John Wick 4: mistaking length for profoundness & epic. There is so much world-building & character development & location setting that the whole thing feels at the same time bloated & also undercooked: vast amounts is tried to be communicated to you & you just start not to care.

There are far too many characters, as well as plot points. Multiple times you are set up for a cliffhanger, only for the day to be saved, then 5 minutes later we're back to everything is lost again. This scenario happened probably 5 times in 20 minutes.

As for casting, Sam Worthington hasn't improved since the first film; Zoë Saldana does everything in her power to be the fierce warrior but not succeeding half of the time; the child actors are good but also given too much to do so their impact is less. As with the 1st film, the best performance is Stephen Lang as Quarich. Brought back again (because in the future people can simply be cloned, again minimising the jeopardy element of the film,) he really turbo charges the movie, although after 3 hours of this constant ratcheting up to create tension, even Daniel Day-Lewis would struggle to keep things fresh.

Another 3 films have been announced to follow this one. They'll all have pretty much the same story, do exactly the same thing, have exactly the same impact, cost obscene amounts of money and break more records for cinema takings. Whilst I'm glad that Cameron is without question keeping film theatres open & thousands of people in highly skilled jobs, I cannot recommend this film for anything other than its visuals.

Before Inglorious Basterds (IG) was released, Tarantino had frequently alluded to & talked about the WW2 action film he was going to make. After the financial failure of Death Proof, Tarantino dug out the half-finished script of IG & finished it. The result is a brilliant, although sometimes too talky film which nevertheless still to me is his best film of the most recent ones he has done.

The story, as with most of Tarantino's films, is split into several narratives. It imagines an alternate setting of WW2 & involves a French orphan, a group of Jewish American soldiers (the Basterds of the title) & finally the British undercover mission to kill Hitler. Along the way, there are many of the staples of Tarantino which are brilliant, such as Mexican standoffs, meaty dialogue & strong characters.

The thing which I did like most of all about this film & is in no way a spoiler is the rug-pull element of it: as much as it is marketed as an action film & there are some combat-scenes, this movie is much more interested in character & story. The titular Basterds themselves barely appear for a good chunk of the film & you hear much of their exploits through the anecdotes of the traumatised Nazi's who managed to survive encountering them.

The opening scene in particular is an absolute powerhouse of tension building, proving again just how much of a master of his craft Tarantino is with script & setting. We are also introduced to Hans Landa, an incredible multi-lingual character played to perfection by Christoph Waltz. Nicknamed the Jew Hunter, he is remorseless in his pursuit of the terrified people trying to escape the Nazi machine slaughtering them without mercy. Despite his absolutely dispicible motives, Landa is a wonderful character, constantly subverting expectations. And most of all, his refusal to be pigeonholed by anyone or any ideology.

Opposite him, Brad Pitt is also great as Aldo Raine, the Tennessee soldier with an accent as thick as Molasses sugar & on a mission to kill as many Nazis as possible with his platoon. His interactions, particularly with Landa, are a highlight: these two men who couldn't be more different in their beliefs seeing & respecting their shared drive. Raine looks at what is going on around him with horror & disgust, further emboldening him to complete his mission.

And finally, Melanie Laurant as Shoshanna is a worthy & compelling character, the orphan who is determined to track down & kill as many of the people responsible for killing her family as she can. Her interactions with Landa are also, once she recognises him, filled with tension.

Unfortunately, amongst all this good stuff, there is also a lot of bloat, particularly in a scene set in a coffee shop. Tarantino cuts away from the story to obsessively watch a group of Germans eating cake & talking at great length, slamming the brakes onto the narrative. Although the film does manage to pull itself back, it was an unnecessary & quite frustrating interruption, making the film longer than it needed to be.

Then we get to the ending & in true Tarantino style, everything goes crazy, but enjoyably so. It is a bonkers but also deliriously silly finale, setting just the right tone & giving us the payoff we wanted.

As for performances, they are all great, including the cameo's from people such as Mike Myers. Everything else, from the uniforms down to the locations is also excellent.

A riot of a film and one which, despite some flaws, I loved & feel probably won't be bettered with whatever QT makes next.

Katherine Bigelow has had an incredible & chequered career, filled with interesting films as well incredible ones. Even when they don't work as a whole, they are still filled with ambition, such as Strange Days, which was so far ahead of its time, today it is scary to watch it.

After the disappointment & serious financial failure of K19 The Widowmaker, there was a 6 year gap before she resurfaced with, in comparison with the massive budgetary opulence of K19, a tiny film made fairly quietly in the Middle East about bomb disposal experts. And, having seen both films, I am actually pleased in a way that there was the failure of K19, because it forced her to go back to the small film world, where often the best films are created.

The Hurt Locker is incredible. Even though it has come into some criticism because of the various elements of it that are absolutely not in any way based in fact, that has to be overlooked when you factor in that this is a piece of entertainment using drama to effectively convey it's message. It opens with a tight-knit team lead by Guy Pearce, defusing a roadside bomb in Iraq. Starting as it means to go on, it starts relaxed & jokey then flips within a second to fear, panic & horror. Pearce's character is killed & then a new Sergeant is brought in to lead the team.

Sergeant First Class James is a totally different kettle of fish: rude, abrasive, refusing to follow orders, communicate with his team or just be a team player in general. He is also addicted to the rush of war & conflict, actively seeking it out, even though he puts everyone else in danger. Thankfully, in the hands of Jeremy Renner, he is also horrifyingly gripping to watch, even though in battle you wouldn't want him anywhere near you, despite his extensive skill in bomb defusal.

The other team members are also extremely diverse & complex characters. Sanborn is the brash, tough-talking sergeant who after losing his close friend in the opening credits, then has to balance that grief with trying to manage someone as unpredictable as the bombs they are defusing. The aggression & disagreements between them are electric. Finally, Eldridge is the young Specialist, wracked with PTSD & totally on edge after the horror of the opening. He is probably the character who could most be seen as us the audience, giving us that portal into an unforgiving & everlasting nightmare you never wake up from.

As the 3 men brave danger together, they start to work together better, although the joy of the story is the total unpredictability of what could happen. There are also some welcome cameo's, particularly from Ralph Fiennes as a highly strung & very English bounty hunter.

But what makes this film work more than anything else is how well it is directed & scripted. Bigelow's mastery of film is shown here as second to none. Whether directing small moments where there is silence but also emotion screaming out of the screen, through to full on action scenes, it is perfect. The look, colour palette & sound especially are also brilliant. The casting is perfect & this was the film that in many ways launched Renner & Mackie's careers.

A film that grabs you, doesn't let go & then leaves you breathless at the end, wanting more. Just like the greatest films should do.

The title pretty much says it all. This film is perfection. The most staggering thing about it in many ways is that it works at all. If you say the plot to someone, it sounds like the worst film ever: 2 down-on-their-luck/penniless actors escape their filthy flat in London for a weekend in the country after finding favour with the camp uncle of one of them. The holiday is a complete disaster, then things get worse when they receive an unexpected & uninvited guest. They then return back to the flat & nothing much has changed. But, as was said wryly by Ralph Brown, "it just goes to show that sometimes you don't need a good plot!"

The best thing about Withnail is it's script. Written by writer/director Bruce Robinson out of desperation & depression when he was living in conditions like in the film, this is one of the funniest stories ever created. Filled with line after line of endlessly quotable dialogue, it has become a cult favourite, particularly amongst students who relate to its alcoholic & poor protagonists.

The performances are note-perfect, especially Grant as Withnail. Based on one of Robinson's friends, Withnail should be an absolutely revolting, horrible character who you wouldn't want to have within 100 miles of you. But yet he is utterly charming, a totally deluded & vain man who is constantly getting himself into unmentionable & excruciatingly embarrassing situations, sometimes by his own making.

Paul McGann is also perfectly cast, playing the "I" character, although his proper name is Marwood. Effectively a composite of Robinson himself, Marwood is a ball of nerves, the man who usually ends up at the sharp end when things go wrong, constantly worrying about things, mainly what new issue Withnail will cause the pair of them. Marwood is also a gentle soul, the water to Withnail's fire. It must be said without him/McGann's performance, the film would be totally unbearable.

And rounding things off is the brilliant Ralph Brown as Danny the dealer. Speaking in a nasally voice & always carrying various hard drugs, Danny is a genius of a character. Spouting off ridiculous conspiracy theories such as hairdressers being in the employment of the government due to hair being your ariels and picking up signals from the cosmos, he perfectly rounds off the ensemble.

From a behind the scenes viewpoint, again it's a miracle this film exists at all. After the first day's shooting, an attempt was made to shut it down by one of the producers, which only failed as Robinson threatened to walk off the film and leave everyone in limbo. The film itself also looks like it was made very cheaply, which adds completely to the charm of it. Effectively, the DVD looks like a pirate copy, although I haven't seen if there is a remastered version (to be honest I wouldn't want there to be, as it'll ruin the charm.)

But complete credit must go to Bruce Robinson. His determination, talent & brilliance as a writer/director resulted in this total & utter gem. Whilst it's sad that he never again reached these heights (although The Rum Diary was a very good attempt to reclaim some lost ground,) salivate & enjoy watching one of the best small films ever made. Then find some other fans & see how long you can keep quoting it (it'll be years!)

Flawless perfection.

Robert Redford has had a glittering & unmatched career. Stunning in many of the films he has been in, he is without doubt a bonafide legend of the silver screen. In many ways it is very interesting that this is, if he keeps to his word, his last film. And I can certainly see why he would want to go out on this. 

It is a very gentle musing & true story, following a man called Forrest Tucker, who was first jailed when he was 15 and then spent the rest of his life in and out of prison, escaping multiple times successfully & many more times “unsuccessfully.” The film then shows his interactions with the various people in the town he finds himself in, as well as the knowledge that he cannot keep doing what he is doing, although this is now a deeply ingrained part of him & his life.

As much as this is a slow film, it is also nice to see an actor of Redford’s calibre in very basic & pure acting scenes, whether it is with Jewel, the woman who helps him escape from one robbery by covering for him, through to the local police chief trying to track down the suspect who he is convinced is the charming man he sees in front of him.

The film itself looks very lovely, although it is not in any way a masterpiece, hence the 3 star rating. It is also very slow, at times too slow & could have done with a bit of editing to tighten it up a bit. As much as some may hope for a massive showdown or shootout, this simply isn’t that kind of movie. This film is here to salivate & appreciate the remarkable talent of Redford, doing what he does best: acting & entertaining us for decades. 

Johnny Vegas’s aim when this TV series was announced was “to make a show so ridiculous there’s no way they’d recommission it.” Judging by the fact there has only been one series, he definitely achieved his goal. I do seem to remember when it was released in 2005 that certain media outlets, in particular the Daily Mail, absolutely lost their minds over it & used it as another example of proof that our society was in moral decline. 

But, if you find extremely transgressive & shocking humour done well funny, then this a riot of a watch. Rather than the whole series, this DVD contains the best bits of the shows edited together. There are some very funny moments, including skits done outside the studio, such as when Vegas dresses up/speaks like an 18th century rentboy, goes to a park and asks extremely surprised people if they want some debauchery. He also invites an audience member to come on stage & punch him and drinks beer from a shoe.

There are also special guests including Ray Winstone, Kathy Burke & Rhys Ifans (who appears absolutely slaughtered out of his mind,) who are all incredibly game for the various dodgy situations they are put in. At the end of each show there is also a “death-defying” with them, involving Vegas jumping over them in things like a kid’s bike or shopping trolley.

But this is absolutely not something to watch with your parents/children/anyone who gets easily offended. The 18 rating is completely justified. This is completely off the wall & uncensored comedy and very, very funny.

When Up In The Air (UITA) was released, it garnered across the board 5 star reviews. The easy charm of Clooney, alongside the minutiae of looking at how a man whose primary job was to travel around the world firing people was always going to be a winner if done well. Fortunately, the writer & director is Jason Reitman, who has made a career of a film with gentle musings and big impacts. Here, he has assembled an incredible cast as well as brilliant crew to bring this script to life.

Ryan Bingham is an “employee-termination” specialist who works for a company hired by organisations who wanted to get rid of their employees but didn’t have the guts to fire them using their own people. Hence, they pay Ryan extortionate amounts to travel all over the country and do it for them. Whilst he is travelling, he meets & starts a casual relationship with Alex, a fellow traveller, meeting up in different states when their schedules combine. Ryan’s life is also changing as well in terms of the goals he has set himself, combined with his advancing years. 

This film is unashamedly Clooney’s. There is almost no other actor on this planet who could play the role of someone who goes around sacking people & make you like them. There is a smoothness, alongside a genuine want to help these individuals find other employment, often better than the job that they are losing. Clooney is a professional at this type of role and his effortless charm & genuine warmth makes him a pleasure to be with. Similarly, Vera Farmiga is outstanding, her sharp businesswoman front giving way to a gentle & tender soul. Anna Kendrick finally rounds things off with her performance as a determined & deeply ambitious woman who then realises the job she has let herself in for. 

As the film progresses, you begin to really buy in to the world that Reitman has created, especially some of the scenes towards the end, including a powerful one where Ryan is forced to confront what he has been running away from most of his life. The music, cinematography & locations brilliantly used, subtle & powerful. Despite its 15 rating, there is only some casual uses of strong language. Overall this is an exceptionally gentle & profound film and one I loved spending the time being a part of.

Highly recommended  

Unless you were someone who lived in the UK & regularly went to the London theatre, there is almost no chance you’d have heard of Mark Rylance. But after some strong performances, including what I feel is & always will be his masterpiece Intimacy, he went back to the stage & ran the Globe Theatre. But one person who had always known & revered him was Steven Spielberg. And when this script was passed to him, there was only ever one person who could play the role of Rudolph Abel, the suspected Russian deep cover spy. 

Bridge of Spies is based on the true story of the prisoner swap between the US & The Soviet Union, at the height of the Cold War. Tom Hanks plays James B Donovan, a highly experienced insurance lawyer who is assigned the case of Rudolph Abel, a suspected Soviet spy who has been monitored & is suspected of passing highly classified material to the USSR. Despite the wish of pretty much everyone to have Abel executed, Donovan manages to successfully spare Abel from the death penalty & then when a U.S. pilot is shot down, he becomes a prisoner that the USSR is willing to trade their hostage with. 

I loved this film. The chemistry between Hanks & Rylance is absolutely outstanding, their respective humours & charm really working in harmony to drive the film forward. But Rylance is also head & shoulders above everyone else with his deeply soulful & sensitive performance. You really warm to Abel & his cheeky approachability, whether he is in a courtroom full of people wanting to kill him with their bare hands or a freezing cold night sharing small talk. It is no wonder that Rylance had a clean sweep at every awards ceremony for his work. 

The script is also very gentle & profound, creating an excellent world which it populates with amazing characters & story. Obviously, being a Spielberg film, everything behind the scenes wise is note perfect. The cinematography in his films never gets nearly enough credit. Janusz Kaminski, who has shot most of Spielberg’s films, is absolutely outstanding, with his colour palette & use of light almost unmatched. The soundtrack by Thomas Newman is also beautiful. 

This is a wonderful film, totally engrossing & perfectly made. Yes it is sometimes a demanding watch, but never for a second is it boring. And with Rylance & Hanks, you couldn’t want for more. 

Alan Turing was an incredible & vital part of the British war effort, cracking what was thought to be the un-crackable code, Enigma. Used by the Nazis to transmit all of their highly classified material including troop movements, ship positions & strategies, it was designed to be completely impossible to compromise. And as such, there was never any kind of censorship on it/all the details were completely accurate. The British, realising that to crack this would turn the tide of the war & enable them to defeat Germany, threw all the resources they had in terms of brainpower to solving it. One of the people who they brought on was a mathematician & genius called Alan Turing, often called the Godfather of the computer.

The Imitation Game follows the frantic attempts of the group assigned to crack this, plus the various challenges that come with this almost unbearable pressure. The film is split into 3 parts: the wartime period when Turing & the team are working on Turing’s creation, which he nicknames Christopher; the “present day” when Turing is being investigated over his sexuality & his arrest for gross indecency; then finally his school days, where he is first recognised as a child genius & develops a crush on a fellow schoolboy called Christopher. 

For me, the biggest issue I have with this film is this structure, specifically the “present day” element. I just felt that it had been added to try & shoehorn in as much exposition as possible and at times really dragged the film down. I didn’t care about the police investigation. For me, I actually wanted the section about his childhood & the young Turing element to be much more fleshed out. This is partly due to the outstanding performance by Alex Lawther, who is an incredible young actor. In just a few scenes, he communicates such happiness followed by heartbreak. His performance as Turing really sets the ground work for Cumberbatch. 

The cracking part of the film, set at Bletchley Park, is also amazing, really going into the detail of how they constructed the machine which would eventually not only help with the war but also become the basis for the technology which is now in everything from your phone to space rockets. Keira Knightly does excellent work as the woman who Turing becomes close to & proposers marriage to, despite her knowing of his sexuality. There is also the obligatory spy/espionage element, fantastically played by Mark Strong. 

Cumberbatch is excellent throughout, especially in the final scenes. The film is solidly & compassionately directed by Morten Tyldum, working from a good script. And finally & most importantly, this film rightfully shines a light on the disgusting treatment that Turing was subjected to because of his sexuality. It is a mark of profound shame on this country’s history that one of the saviours of it was treated the way he was. Thankfully he was pardoned, but the end scenes particularly are excruciating to watch. 

Thank you Alan Turing for everything you did. I and millions of others are indebted to you. 

I rented this for my parents as my dad has been a fanatical sailer his whole life & wanted to see this documentary, so this review is his feedback rather than my own personal experience.

They both loved it as a piece of cinema showing the struggles of getting sponsorship & a yacht in order to compete in the round the world race as the first female team.

The interviews were great and there was lots of new background information which hadn't been shown/spoken about before.

Came highly recommended

I knew nothing of the Jack Reacher series before seeing these films. I had read the good reviews, as well as the backlash from the fan base over the casting of Tom Cruise, but after witnessing the same thing with Daniel Craig over him being “too blonde” to play Bond, I never pay any attention to this these complaints. 

The film itself is really good. The opening in particular sets the tone horrifyingly well, watching a sniper pull up & just shoot into a crowd of people, with no music track, just the echoing of gunshots and screams. Reacher, having been keeping a profile so low not even law enforcement are able to track him down, resurfaces as he has his own reasons to become involved. Partnering up with Rosamund Pike’s lawyer, he discovers a set-up involving agencies across the legal system. 

The script, story, locations & performances are all great, none more so than Werner Herzog. Although normally a director, he had done some acting previously & wanted to do another film. As weird as it may sound, he is incredible, but is not much different from the Herzog we all know and love. But he is unbelievably creepy & the film benefitted massively from his in its cast. 

A great film & compelling watch. There is a sequel which is not as good as this movie, but still a good watch if you enjoyed this. 

After other attempts to bring a successful Dune adaptation to the big screen Denis Villeneuve, who had before spoken of Dune as being his dream project, was given the keys and the budget to be able to realise his vision, although until recently part 2 wasn't guaranteed to happen. This first part builds the worlds which the story takes place in, establishing the rival families and the power they seek.

My main reason for seeing this film was quite simply Denis Villeneuve. I love Prisoners and Sicario, although I hated Arrival. But all his films have incredible visuals, which in the end is the saving grace for me. The worlds Villeneuve builds along with his team are stunning and staggering beautiful to look at. The cinematography is great, as are the costumes.

However, for me this was never more than 3 stars and that's being generous. I struggled at times to stay interested in this film, and other times it would grab me but then just revert back to being boring.

Also, as much as it has one of the most stacked casts in recent blockbuster movie memory, there are some misfires. Josh Brolin is in many ways wasted, as is David Dastmalchian. But for me the biggest problem was Timothée Chalamet. Many actors before him have trod the same path: the son at the head of a dynasty who then takes over & proves himself to be the leader no-one thought he could be. But I simply couldn't take him seriously, especially in the combat scenes. In a duel between him & an enemy, it just doesn't work. The guy he's fighting looks like he's used bigger things to pick his teeth with. That's not to say Chalamet doesn't give it his all, he's just miscast.

But I do have to finish by saying this: I am not a big Sci-Fi/space opera fan. These massive stories set in space with the subsequent technology has never really interested me, with notable exceptions such as the Alien films. So despite me coming in with an open mind, this again just proves that this is not the type of film for me. But it is a very beautiful film to look at and for many people, this is great filmmaking. Sadly, not for me though.